Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaroslav Hunka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I think we're done here: serious SNOW. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Hunka

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Yaroslav Hunka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:1E. This man is famous as of yesterday for one event. Not notable. cagliost (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. It is preferable that the page be renamed the "Yaroslav Hunka Affair" or "Yaroslav Hunka Controversy" and go into detail on the whole incident instead as it affects more than just Mr. Hunka. Factchecker72946482 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

*Keep. Removing this summary from Wikipedia will remove one of the most detailed summaries about this Nazi from the internet, which will aid conspiracy theorists and the like. Having a detailed summary (including that he continued to be an activist for officers like himself in later life) is important to the understanding of a major political scandal surrounding the most important war of the twenties.Jamesjansson (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, This article is defamatory harrassment and it infringes on the privacy of mr. Hunka.23.236.83.249 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:*The individual is notable as he and his attendance at the Canadian parliament and the praise given him by the Canadian house speaker, makes him notable. his presence in Canada along with others from Division or the SS 14th Waffen Division is also notable and worthy of mention in this article as well. 208.123.202.108 (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC) :*This assertion is false. Hunka is a Nazi SS officer that has been the subject of global news. If he didn't want to be known, he should have kept a low profile. 2604:3D09:147F:F910:19F5:E9C8:F704:754F (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: non-extended-confirmed users are not permitted to edit this project discussion per WP:GS/RUSUKR.  —Michael Z. 13:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I haven't delved deep into Ukrainian-language sources but there's evidence that he has been active in Waffen-SS veteran's circles post-war and information that makes him more notable beyond a single event could be find. But even if there isn't, I think the controversy surrounding his summon to Parliament is receiving such a great deal of attention that's going to be known for a long time that it's notable. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Could not agree more. This was an historical event. Gary 7vn (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the article as per suggestions above, and have it focus on the incident first and Hunka second, as opposed the other way around. Hunka is primarily covered because of this incident.Cortador (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and thus WP:NOTNEWS. This person warrants no notability by themselves, is in the media for a brief instant, then is gone. 14.2.192.61 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Deletion the article after the person become scandalous compromises Wikipedia's neutrality. 37.186.45.57 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

The article was not created until the scandal. That's why cagliost nominated referring to WP:1E. glman (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:Agreed. 170.63.193.132 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Maybe rename it to "Yaroslav Hunka scandal" or "Yaroslav Hunka controversy"? Sidney.Cortez (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to a new page on the event, or on the trip to Canada. I agree with the nominator, policy WP:1E applies. However, the event seems notable. I'm not sure we've shown that it's lasting effects, so WP:NOTNEWS may apply. Could we roll it into an article about the visit as a whole? At least until we have evidence it's an event with sustained effects? Lots of arguments in the comments that to not reference any Wikipedia policy. glman (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. While the recent incident has certainly put the spotlight on him, he has a well-documented history and as apparently had a leadership role among the Nazi-collaborator Ukrainian veterans in Canada. Given the integral role that he's played in this national and international event, his bio is deserving of inclusion. Note that, following this event, Poland may seek his extradition on war crimes charges. [2] -2003:CA:8707:C60:1E85:2D36:7F42:DCF4 (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:I went to several news sites trying to figure out how easy his involvement with the SS was. I found it in this article. I would be very concerned about this article being deleted. While I agree that he has achieved national notoriety for the one event, is irrelevant. It appears that a very superficial vetting of this person would find concerns. Don't hide this information. 96.30.130.38 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. the incident and the person has now made international news and can be cited on multiple reliable sources. Anvib (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The incident is notable at least as part of Rota's biography, but the person is not necessarily notable. There were more notable members of SS Galizien living in Canada and the US.
    Also, it's a curious cultural phenomenon: Canada accepted many of the SS Galizien veterans in the aftermath of WWII, but the headlines appear only 70 years later.     --Amakuha (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the 1st and to date only Nazi SS officer honoured in Canada's Parliament, during a high profile visit by the Ukrainian PM during the war with Russia, and the subject of international news coverage- he is very notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename/Merge. Deletion of this article would be politically motivated in my view. I would like this to be kept or renamed/merged into something like the "Hunka Affair" etc. This is a major scandal in Canada and has had international ramifications now that it appears that Poland is seeking this individual's extradition. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move. This individual is only notable for one event, and as per WP:1E, the general rule is to cover the event, and not the person. If anything, this should be covered under an article about the event.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "only notable for one event". That is not exactly true, it appears he has been in the media before at least in Canada; there are other sources from 2022 which noted his presence at protests against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Anvib (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the subject may not have been very notable on his own for his actions during the war, the politization of him in recent times has definitely made him notable enough to keep. At the very most, this article should be renamed/recentered around the events that took place in Canada and not in Europe. EytanMelech (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though renaming or moving to a “Hunka controversy “ article would be acceptable. Both the man and the controversy over his being honored in the Canadian Parliament are notable. His individual case, which may extend to war crimes charges and trial, and the history of the SS Galizien division as a whole are complicated and nuanced. A rational, sourced article that can help shed light on them is of significant value. Brons (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or Rename. It's especially become notable now with the Speaker resigning as a result of the event. Either move to new article or keep the article as is. :Emkut7 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: It is important not to delete history, especially a chapter as pertinent as this101.78.67.231 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree with above, deleting this article is trying to sweep the event under the rug as a political move. People deserve to know who was honoured by the Canadian parliament. There are plenty of secondary sources even without the controversy to substantiate Hunka's notability. Deathying (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but note how many people visit the page. If the visit count is sufficient, then retain longer term as important. User:meteorquake — Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

*Keep. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about people who are known for one or few things - someone which is at the heart of a national/international political "incident" figures relatively high-up in the "encyclopaedia-worthy" list. Whilst Mr Hunka may have become famous for the incident, it does not appear as if that is his only history-worthy fact, given that by definition there may well be citeable research in the near future into his actual contribution to the war/his biography between the war and showing up in the Canadian parliament. Peter Kelford (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - BLP1E doesn't apply for the following reasons:
  1. Hunka was the central figure in the event, rather than being only incidentally involved.
  2. The controversy occurred in large part due to Hunka's overall biography and personal history, rather than some specific action he took during his visit to the Canadian Parliament.
  3. The reporting on Hunka in many cases covers his entire life as relevant to the central controversy rather than merely for color. Many journalists have focused specifically on Hunka's past and thus his life story has now become notable, even if he only originally gained widespread public attention due to his Canadian Parliament appearance.
  4. Hunka has been profiled as an individual in both Canadian and international media.
  5. Hunka has become involved in other events beyond his initial appearance at the Canadian Parliament. The Polish government has publicly announced that it is investigating him and may seek to extradite him to Poland. This constitutes another event in which Hunka has been implicated and of relevance to this article.
Accordingly, the article should be kept and not moved to another name referring only to a single incident. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Anthony Rota is the central figure. 2. seems to contradict your 1 if the subject’s actions at the event were not central. He’s in the news because the speaker acknowledged him; not because he was a person present at the event, and not because he’s one of the one of the Canadian immigrants who’d been members of the Galicia Division. 3. The biography seems to be based on one blog post by the subject, reporting about the blog post, and incidental mentions elsewhere. 4. Here’s the crux: is there any SIGCOV from before the current event? 5. One Polish minister tweeted. I’m not aware that the Polish government announced anything.  —Michael Z. 02:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP without question. Although I'm sure scrubbing all information about this guy's crimes against humanity from the internet would be advantageous to the Canadian government and the Kiev junta, we cannot cover up information about war criminals nor people actively involved in contemporary news, such as his involvement in Canadian events and the extraction to Poland he is currently facing. This is a very clear attempt at censorship of the flow of inconvenient information and Wikipedia has a moral duty to not obfuscate current events or cover up history. 2601:602:8B80:7520:51CB:DA4F:C3FF:5553 (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Member of the SS that somehow managed to immigrate to Canada who is still living in 2023, and led to the resignation of the Speaker of the House of Canada. That seems to be at least three items that makes him noteworthy. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many former members of the Wehrmacht and SS emigrated to Western countries like Canada, that part is not at all noteworthy. Inviting one of them into a democratic institution is though Anvib (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the US, the number of former Wehrmacht and SS who successfully immigrated to the US is a pretty quantifiable number. The John Demjanjuk case was noteable even before he was old. That makes at least three reasons he is noteworthy: 1) SS to the West 2) Lived to old age and 3) Canadian scandal. Jjazz76 (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Is that you, Kaurine Gould? She literally tried to do a motion to remove multimedia about the incident. https://www.kossyderrickent.com/2023/09/photo-karina-gould-and-anthony-rota.html?m=1 109.252.170.135 (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Important individual especially considering the impact he caused. Durangoose (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Relevant and necessary, especially when the governments trying to pretend it didnt happen, having a bank of sources like this is important. 2607:FEA8:BADF:7450:BC7F:E811:1727:F546 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • Rename. He is not any more notable than any other SS officer. What is notable is the controversy surrounding, and thus I think this should be an event page rather than biography. It would be more informative to the average person looking this up to have a box on the impact of his being applauded in Parliament, result, date of this happening and so on. Any information about him specifically should be framed as secondary, as the details of his deeds are not as pertinent information. Focusing too much on the deeds of any given SS officer on Wikipedia is liable to glorification when framed out of context of consequences (which are why people are searching for this information). Keeping this as a biography page sets a precedent to continue to have articles for every former SS officer who ends up commended; whether in Canadian Parlament or through something like Operation Paperclip. People years from now who will not have the fallout of this fresh in their memory may have a distorted view of what happened if it is framed as an individual Nazi who received a standing ovation on his own merit, having to scroll down sections in order to find out that the Speaker in the House Of Commons resigned after he learned what he had done, or that numerous MPs spoke out against this after the fact in disbelief that the Speaker would have done this, citing having been misled. It matters to know that this was not accepted, and it had consequences, as the primary leading information in this article, above the individual Nazi. He could have been any Nazi that the Speaker befriended. Most of the information can remain the same, but there is no reason this should be a biography page specifically. He does not have a page because he himself was notable. We do not have pages for Holocaust survivors who have been mentioned in Parliament. Again, he is not notable on his own without this incident. (As much as I am certain many of us wish his actions were an outlier, and thus notable.) It should be a page categorized as a major incident or event in ongoing Canadian history. Averagecryptid (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article about the event itself per BLP1E and NOTNEWS. I will note that the vast majority of replies here do not cite any policy as a basis, simply that he "needs" to have an article because of said event, which is notable but apparently lacks a page of its own. Additionally, I agree with @Mzajac that per GS/RUSUKR it is not particularly constructive to have many IP editors giving inputs, particularly as, at risk of breaching AGF, I will say at least a handful of these votes do not seem to be particularly interested in making arguments based on policy and guidelines.
Mupper-san (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the talk page: [3]. Do defamatory comments violating BLP need to have the history wiped?  —Michael Z. 03:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac How does one defame a Nazi? From the talk you linked, the only comment of concern is an IP calling the subject POS. And that is minor incivility as per WP:CRD#RD2 — hako9 (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and potential move to "Yaroslav Hunka affair". This person has now received international news coverage and is the central figure surrounding why the Canadian Speaker of the House has resigned. I think it's fair to say that meets notability guidelines. XTheBedrockX (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only is this person notable for having been celebrated in the Canadian parliament, despite apparent ties to Nazi Germany, but it is very very strange for this article to be proposed for deletion immediately after the event. Jkp1187 (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - typically I'd vote against this, however, there seems to be enough cited material to substantiate an article. Oppose move to dedicated article about the wider event though I can understand the WP:BLP1E concerns, there is actually sourcing prior to the events of September 2023, with one even going back as far back as March 2011, and two from last year, meaning that I think this barely passes the threshold for being a standalone biographical article. — Knightoftheswords 01:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2011 source is a primary source (Hunka's letter, published in a blog). There is only one 2022 source: a short mention of Hunka participating in a rally in support of Ukraine. All other sources are after 23 September 2023. So, definitely, a WP:BLP1E. --Amakuha (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This indivdual pretty much created a huge political scandal on the federal level in Canada. He is noticeable in the public and among concerned citizens of a certain country called Canada and he is an exceptionally noticeable individual in the history of Canada's Westminster parliamentary system despite not being an MP or a parliamentary officer. This incident shouldn't go unnoticed. So, keep. Komitsuki (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename and Rewrite This article falls short of a few guidelines. Such as the guidance in WP:1E avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. and The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. It also falls short of WP:SUSTAINED - the significant coverage of the topic of the article in secondary sources has just come from a span of a few days. I would consider this whole controversy to amount to a single event. --Tristario (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:1E. If this is going to be kept, it would need to be rewritten to focus on the one event rather than the person. However, as an event, the jury is still out on whether or not it will clear WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING. --StellarHalo (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: cagliost says it's "Not notable" and yet as I write this, the article has had 267,150 pageviews since it was created 2 days ago. The number of pageviews indicates that it is in fact notable.  selfwormTalk) 05:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site should be moved to another name, i.e. "Yaroslav Hunka controversy," or another one that puts the emphasis on compromising the Canadian parliament. Hunka himself is a background actor in this case; during the war he was one of thousands of soldiers in the division, and after the war he was one of many exile activists.Marcelus (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but re-title. The scandal is notable. Srnec (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As highlighted above, BLP1E does not count here. It seems to be snowing here, so any scope for a speedy keep or even a withdrawal of the nom? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 15:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:1E doesn't mean that you don't have an article on the event. It only means that you don't necessarily have one article for the event, and one article for people involved in it. This article is clearly notable, regardless of what the title is. Therefore, keep. As for the title, I don't think it needs an suffix, further context can be added where appropriate within references to him (eg the guy who quit because of it). Either way, it's not the point of an AFD. Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Objectively fits all of the criteria of a BLP. NPOV? Check. NOR? Check. Verifiability? Check. And, if the extradition request goes anywhere, there will be even more content to add and secondary sources to cite. --Panian513 21:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yaroslav_Hunka&oldid=1179352428"